Re: Rigging and Animation in Modo

[Jason S]

  
  
On
  08/22/14 13:06, Serch Mucino wrote:


  

  

  

  

  Workflow-wise, I'd say
  Modo is closer to Maya than anything else. 

Apart from the mentioned issues, for me that's
what I wasn't too fond about Modo 
(feels a bit like a cross between Maya &
Lightwave) 
but it's at least still much more approachable
than either.

Also, I know the 701 did get great performance
improvements for some things, 
so at least we see that it's possible, but that
was only after many many years of knowing of the
problem (like now) which also -still remains-. 

(probably rather deep core stuff, where it's
hard to not break, or not have to basically redo
entire trickling chunks, while also already
having as many issues with stability) 



... we should get a
  Montreal Modo User Group going! I know there
  are a few Modo users over here... maybe
  something could be done ;-).

Lol I would love to, but for me.. I'll be
focusing on comp (which I love) at least for a
while, 

but which is I guess at least part of why I'm
somewhat unhappy about how things turned out.

All Softimage studios around me have either
kept-on using SI until further notice, 
(but not necessarily  hiring)
or until something comparably let
say:'efficient' surfaces..
(not just finishing previous projects, but also
starting new ones
 
not wanting to deal with ~2x as long/hard,
~2x the staff, 2x everything )

.. or somehow managed to -cope- with Maya 
(coping with the ~2x as long/hard, ~2x
the staff, 2x everything.. to which
the tweak tool or the H key hardly
compensates).. 

OR.. have actually closed down!
(with the quite literal ~2x as long/hard,
~2x the staff, 2x everything quite
possibly having something to do with a good part
of it).




And I guess same goes for me (in studios),
deadlines often being (pretty normally) rather
tight, 
XSI has somehow always been specially good for
exactly that, 
and Maya has always been almost like the exact
opposite while not having really changed.. it's
pretty incredible. 
(historically, and pretty much still just as
much, while always only adding new things)

That unless there is like dedicated teams for
all sorts of little things at the same time,
or be in one of the bigger studios who use old
maya versions that have nothing to do with Maya
and that aren't even interested in new versions.


And already in XSI, despite being by far the
most "forgiving", it sometimes happens that it's
barely enough to deliver in time, enough that we
couldn't have imagined what (or if) we would
have delivered with anything else.

Which is what I guess brought me personally to
focus on comp 
(at 40, I can't/don't want to do the ~80h I use
to)


  

Re: ot: unreal engine

[Francisco Criado]

Martin,
In the unreal forum that was posted earlier in this mail you can read that
for those movies he only spent 10 minutes aprox for baking lights.
F.
 El ago 23, 2014 4:44 PM, "Martin Yara"  escribió:

> Outstanding quality !
>
> I've never written a shader, and I guess I misunderstood you but are you
> saying that this quality is achievable in SI with custom shaders? even with
> that crappy viewer?
>
> BTW, the fact that he is using UE4 doesn't mean the final movie frame
> rate is real time. I'm guessing it isn't, just like all the cinematics we
> see in games nowadays, pre-rendered with real time shaders.
>
> Martin
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Eugene Flormata 
> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOkJ1-vnh-s
>> this doesn't really look baked though
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Alok Gandhi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's all about baking. Recently, I made some arch viz app for Andriod
>>> and iOS and I was able to achieve good quality. It was for unity and I did
>>> all the baking in soft.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 23-Aug-2014, at 4:06 am, Nicolas Esposito <3dv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Consider that this is a kind of tech demo, means that Unreal Engine 4,
>>> being a game engine, is built to manage multiple aspect ( physics,
>>> characters movement and logic, enemies logic, particles and so on )
>>> The video shows how good is UE4 with lighting and "atmosphere", but the
>>> you actually build your scene as a game you need to do lots of
>>> compromises...
>>> Cryengine 2 was used as well for archivz and the results were stunning,
>>> and lots of companies get a license to develop just that...
>>>
>>> The main issue that I found right now is that if you want to share or
>>> send the work to your client ( as a walkthrough I mean ) you have to send (
>>> and install ) a 1-2gb file, which most clients are not so comfortable
>>> with...otherwise you can just render a video with it...the main advantage
>>> is that you don't wait 5 minutes per frame, but just a couple of seconds.
>>>
>>> Anyway this engine looks amazing and the constant updates are improving
>>> it more and more
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-08-22 23:18 GMT+02:00 Cristobal Infante :
>>>
 Some more in his work in kotaku:


 http://kotaku.com/next-gen-lighting-is-pushing-the-limits-of-realism-1625324795?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflow

 And also a while back this Swedish apartment was done in Unreal
 (previously done in octane). He even offers a download if you want to test
 the interactivity.

 http://vimeo.com/m/98625270


 On Friday, 22 August 2014, Matt Lind  wrote:

> Addendum:
>
>
>
> It’s also part of the reason why 3rd party apps such as Fabric Engine
> can render faster than the native viewports – less overhead.
>
>
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Matt Lind
> *Sent:* Friday, August 22, 2014 2:11 PM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* RE: ot: unreal engine
>
>
>
> Not the entire reason, but a big part of it is DCC apps must spend a
> lot of time reading and evaluating construction histories and other user
> interaction whereas the displayed data in a game engine is stripped down 
> to
> the bare minimum for performance.  Game engines will always be faster than
> DCC apps in that regard, and by a large factor.
>
>
>
> As for look quality, it’s just a matter of writing the shaders.  You
> can do that in Softimage.
>
>
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
> mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Jordi
> Bares
> *Sent:* Friday, August 22, 2014 2:04 PM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* Re: ot: unreal engine
>
>
>
> I still wonder why the viewport of our 3D apps is not as good as that…
> :-P
>
>
>
> Jordi Bares
>
> jordiba...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On 22 Aug 2014, at 21:34, Francisco Criado 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> it seems to be, it only tales 10 minutes to build the light mapping.
>
> details here:
>
> https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?28163-ArchViz-Lighting
>
>
>
> 2014-08-22 17:30 GMT-03:00 David Saber :
>
> On 2014-08-22 18:55, Francisco Criado wrote:
>
> have to share this:
>
>
>
> UE4 Archviz / Lighting 2
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> F.
>
> wowo, this is realtime?
>
>
>
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: ot: unreal engine

[Tim Leydecker]

the nice thing about the ue4 engine is it´s move towards PBR (physical based 
rendering).

At first, this sounds like something groundbreaking (and it is for games) but 
fortunately,
any experience with VRAY, mR, Arnold or Redshift, etc. will give a headstart in 
terms of
how to set up a shader. The realtime and the offline render worlds grow closer 
together.

Many of the current awesome ue4 demos make extensive use of mapping the 
glossiness.

Here´s a good intro into the general topic of PBR:

http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/pbr-theory

http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/pbr-practice

That transfers nicely back into, let´s say Arnold, Vray, etc.

I´m not sure how easy it is to implement such a shader in DX9/OGL/DX11(?) for 
XSI, thought.










On 23.08.2014 21:44, Martin Yara wrote:

Outstanding quality !

I've never written a shader, and I guess I misunderstood you but are you saying 
that this quality is achievable in SI with custom shaders? even with that 
crappy viewer?

BTW, the fact that he is using UE4 doesn't mean the final movie frame rate is 
real time. I'm guessing it isn't, just like all the cinematics we see in games 
nowadays, pre-rendered
with real time shaders.

Martin


On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Eugene Flormata mailto:eug...@flormata.com>> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOkJ1-vnh-s
this doesn't really look baked though


On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Alok Gandhi mailto:alok.gandhi2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

It's all about baking. Recently, I made some arch viz app for Andriod 
and iOS and I was able to achieve good quality. It was for unity and I did all 
the baking in soft.

Sent from my iPhone

On 23-Aug-2014, at 4:06 am, Nicolas Esposito <3dv...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Consider that this is a kind of tech demo, means that Unreal Engine 4, 
being a game engine, is built to manage multiple aspect ( physics, characters 
movement and logic,
enemies logic, particles and so on )
The video shows how good is UE4 with lighting and "atmosphere", but the 
you actually build your scene as a game you need to do lots of compromises...
Cryengine 2 was used as well for archivz and the results were stunning, 
and lots of companies get a license to develop just that...

The main issue that I found right now is that if you want to share or 
send the work to your client ( as a walkthrough I mean ) you have to send ( and 
install ) a 1-2gb
file, which most clients are not so comfortable with...otherwise you 
can just render a video with it...the main advantage is that you don't wait 5 
minutes per frame, but
just a couple of seconds.

Anyway this engine looks amazing and the constant updates are improving 
it more and more


2014-08-22 23:18 GMT+02:00 Cristobal Infante mailto:cgc...@gmail.com>>:

Some more in his work in kotaku:


http://kotaku.com/next-gen-lighting-is-pushing-the-limits-of-realism-1625324795?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflow

And also a while back this Swedish apartment was done in Unreal 
(previously done in octane). He even offers a download if you want to test the 
interactivity.

http://vimeo.com/m/98625270


On Friday, 22 August 2014, Matt Lind  
wrote:

Addendum:

__ __

It’s also part of the reason why 3^rd party apps such as Fabric 
Engine can render faster than the native viewports – less overhead.

__ __

__ __

Matt

__ __

__ __

__ __

*From:*Matt Lind
*Sent:* Friday, August 22, 2014 2:11 PM
*To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
*Subject:* RE: ot: unreal engine

__ __

Not the entire reason, but a big part of it is DCC apps must 
spend a lot of time reading and evaluating construction histories and other 
user interaction whereas
the displayed data in a game engine is stripped down to the 
bare minimum for performance.  Game engines will always be faster than DCC apps 
in that regard, and by
a large factor.

__ __

As for look quality, it’s just a matter of writing the shaders. 
 You can do that in Softimage.

__ __

__ __

Matt

__ __

__ __

__ __

*From:*softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Jordi Bares
*Sent:* Friday, August 22, 2014 2:04 PM
*To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
*Subject:* Re: ot: unreal engine

__ __

   

Re: ot: unreal engine

[Martin Yara]

Outstanding quality !

I've never written a shader, and I guess I misunderstood you but are you
saying that this quality is achievable in SI with custom shaders? even with
that crappy viewer?

BTW, the fact that he is using UE4 doesn't mean the final movie frame
rate is real time. I'm guessing it isn't, just like all the cinematics we
see in games nowadays, pre-rendered with real time shaders.

Martin


On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Eugene Flormata 
wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOkJ1-vnh-s
> this doesn't really look baked though
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Alok Gandhi 
> wrote:
>
>> It's all about baking. Recently, I made some arch viz app for Andriod and
>> iOS and I was able to achieve good quality. It was for unity and I did all
>> the baking in soft.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 23-Aug-2014, at 4:06 am, Nicolas Esposito <3dv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Consider that this is a kind of tech demo, means that Unreal Engine 4,
>> being a game engine, is built to manage multiple aspect ( physics,
>> characters movement and logic, enemies logic, particles and so on )
>> The video shows how good is UE4 with lighting and "atmosphere", but the
>> you actually build your scene as a game you need to do lots of
>> compromises...
>> Cryengine 2 was used as well for archivz and the results were stunning,
>> and lots of companies get a license to develop just that...
>>
>> The main issue that I found right now is that if you want to share or
>> send the work to your client ( as a walkthrough I mean ) you have to send (
>> and install ) a 1-2gb file, which most clients are not so comfortable
>> with...otherwise you can just render a video with it...the main advantage
>> is that you don't wait 5 minutes per frame, but just a couple of seconds.
>>
>> Anyway this engine looks amazing and the constant updates are improving
>> it more and more
>>
>>
>> 2014-08-22 23:18 GMT+02:00 Cristobal Infante :
>>
>>> Some more in his work in kotaku:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://kotaku.com/next-gen-lighting-is-pushing-the-limits-of-realism-1625324795?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflow
>>>
>>> And also a while back this Swedish apartment was done in Unreal
>>> (previously done in octane). He even offers a download if you want to test
>>> the interactivity.
>>>
>>> http://vimeo.com/m/98625270
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, 22 August 2014, Matt Lind  wrote:
>>>
 Addendum:



 It’s also part of the reason why 3rd party apps such as Fabric Engine
 can render faster than the native viewports – less overhead.





 Matt







 *From:* Matt Lind
 *Sent:* Friday, August 22, 2014 2:11 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* RE: ot: unreal engine



 Not the entire reason, but a big part of it is DCC apps must spend a
 lot of time reading and evaluating construction histories and other user
 interaction whereas the displayed data in a game engine is stripped down to
 the bare minimum for performance.  Game engines will always be faster than
 DCC apps in that regard, and by a large factor.



 As for look quality, it’s just a matter of writing the shaders.  You
 can do that in Softimage.





 Matt







 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
 mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Jordi
 Bares
 *Sent:* Friday, August 22, 2014 2:04 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: ot: unreal engine



 I still wonder why the viewport of our 3D apps is not as good as that…
 :-P



 Jordi Bares

 jordiba...@gmail.com



 On 22 Aug 2014, at 21:34, Francisco Criado 
 wrote:



 it seems to be, it only tales 10 minutes to build the light mapping.

 details here:

 https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?28163-ArchViz-Lighting



 2014-08-22 17:30 GMT-03:00 David Saber :

 On 2014-08-22 18:55, Francisco Criado wrote:

 have to share this:



 UE4 Archviz / Lighting 2
 





 F.

 wowo, this is realtime?





>>>
>>
>

RE: Rigging and Animation in Modo

[Maurício P . Cuencas]

Since we are also talking about Modo viewport performance, theres a thread at 
the TF community about Gavriil Klimov work with Modo and Mesh Fusion and his 
return to Max. Somebody posted about some work he did with Modo and he decided 
to go there and answer the reasons for his workflow. I'll leave the thread link 
after a quote from him.

Hey guys, I am glad some of you liked my youtube video about mesh fusion :)
Rob linked me this topic of which I wasn't aware, so I'd like to reply to some 
of the things I saw posted around.

Quote from Polygon Monkey :
"I wonder what kind of hardware he's using. From watching the video, Modo is 
getting crappy frame rates with just a cube. I'm assuming his hardware isn't 
too powerful. If you have a decent computer, Modo should have no trouble with 
frame rates displaying a cube even with a bunch other apps running in the 
background."


- You're right, it wasn't super smooth due to the live-event capturing the 
screen at high frame-rate and in fact it was lagging under a condition in which 
it would never usually lag.
I have 2 machines, one is a 32 cores with 98GB of ram 1600mhz, quadro 6000G, 
tesla 2075, 2 ssd and 1 regular 10k rpm and another one is a 12 core 48gb ram 
1600mhz with titan black and as well 2 ssd and 1 regular hd.
I have extremely powerful hardware; for work I was able to smoothly navigate a 
scene in 3ds Max with 128 mil polygons and as a test I did in Mudbox, I can 
sculpt with only 1 sec delay on a mesh with over 100 mil polygons.
Capturing video tho, especially at high frame rate, always kills whatever 
you're doing, that's the only reason why it appeared choppy :)

Quote from Martin Oberg :
"It's been ages since I used Max but back then it was pretty crappy compared to 
what XSI could handle.

I don't understand why you would want to use polygon modeling for the type of 
stuff he posted on Facebook though. Something like MOI / Rhino or indeed Mesh 
Fusion is much better suited."


- Some other 3ds max users and I, found a way to do basically 'mesh fusion' 
inside 3ds max (and it work with any mesh, doesn't have to be all quads) the 
performance is way smoother and faster than MODO's MF and while it only has 
very few settings for the edges compared to MF, I'd much rather take the 
ability to do MF with any type of mesh (the quad thing is really a pain) and 
improved performance. So what you said is somewhat true, but Max actually 
allows for that too.
There's also been some guys that inspired by MF coded scripts that help 
recreate the same things, check out one called "multimesher" for 3ds max. This 
to me, just shows how robust is the 3ds max core is, and something that I wish 
was improved in MODO.

Quote from Andyjaggy :
"I question that Max is better than Modo with dense meshes. I use both on a 
daily basis and Max isn't much better. Max can move around dense objects 
better, if you are moving them on an object level. Once you edit the polygons 
directly and try to drag all the polys around instead of the base item, then 
Max is just as slow as Modo."


- I don't know what hardware you use, but I guarantee you with heavy meshes, 
polygon selections and hard-surface modeling tools, 3ds Max has nearly perfect 
to almost perfect smoothness in the viewport, MODO starts to chug down a lot 
and eventually lags out.

Quote from mathaeus :
"Not really, especially when compared to latest Modo versions. Don't believe in 
words of hard surface modelers :) ( I am one, from time to time). Most likely, 
he already have necessary habits, somewhere in his backbone, to avoid Max's 
glitches - but not for Modo, yet.
However, what's annoying in Modo from my, very personal XSI and Max 
perspective, it's lack of non-destructive modeling operators, bevel for 
example. New ones, like lattice, in Modo belongs to setup room, instead to be 
accesible from everywhere. Also, too much of options in Modo when it comes to 
simple tasks. Tool pipe, what not.
Anyway it seems all that modeling story is very personal. With all due respect, 
don't know why all that philosophy about such kind of forms. I'd also try to do 
something like this, using some automatized filleting, in MoI, Mesh Fusion, 
whatever."


- I have been using MODO for a while, since the 501 release and have got all 
the upgrades along the way, I am currently running the last version of 801 with 
MF and while it did improve a little, it's still light years away compared to 
the viewport of 3ds max or XSI.
You're right, a big issue I find is that MODO doesn't have a modifiers stack 
that greatly helps the modeling workflow and non destructive nature of it.


Lastly, I would like to add few things:

- I do like MODO, but the VP is terrible at high density scenes, I do not 
really care to argue with people that claim otherwise because I run multiple 
PCs with very high specs and I can see for myself how the same scenes are being 
handled inside 3dsmax/XSI and inside MODO.
I think one of the main issues is that

Re: Rigging and Animation in Modo

[philipp seis]

my 5 cent:

i really think, the whole point comparing features of Softwares is highly
overestimated.
Of course there are very rational reasons of choosing one Software over
another:
The price, the features, the amount of jobs we think there are outside.
But at the end of the day, we could ask ourselves: Are we in 3d, because we
are purely rational
decision makers ? If so, i would be a lawer, do real estates, or try to go
after a job that promises more
money or prestige.
I guess, most of the guys in Animation wanted to do what they are truly
interested in, love, or just fits them.
So my humble advice: Stop comparing features. Go for Sympathy.
Why working with a Software, you dislike ? We will find a 100 reasons for
and against every package.
I know many of us don't have that luxury, and it might not appear
particularly professional
if you utter such a theory in meetings with people wearing suits. But for a
lot of us thats doable.
My rational side constantly tells me 2 packages i "should" learn, while i
find myself working with
something that i feel speaks to me. So i'll surrender to this one.

best, Philipp




2014-08-22 23:21 GMT+02:00 Cristobal Infante :

> maybe, but the work coming out if the cinema4d community is pretty
> impressive, and so is the demand for C4D artists.
>
>
> On Friday, 22 August 2014, Sebastien Sterling <
> sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I suppose at least modo looks like it is heading in the right direction,
>> getting into bed with the foundry, the last C4D demo, was kinda scatter
>> brained.
>>
>>
>> On 22 August 2014 21:03, w...@fiftyeight.com  wrote:
>>
>>>   Iam also searching for an alternative-softimage,
>>>  and found this riggs done in modo https://vimeo.com/ochyming/videos
>>> very nice.
>>>
>>>  but still found not a softimage-alternative both cinema4d and modo not
>>> having something like a schematic-view and also not an history-stacks,
>>>  on the other side c4d has realy nice deformers and tools aready built
>>> in (squash&stretch or dynamic-chains for example but in cinema4d i have the
>>> feeling
>>>  that i can not go so far as with softimage (adding points/edges on
>>> rigged,shape-animted envelops,)
>>>
>>>  Iam more an allrounder by the way
>>>
>>>  Walter
>>>
>>>
>>> phil harbath  hat am 22. August 2014 um
>>> 20:32 geschrieben:
>>>
>>>   how does shape animation in modo compare to the shape manager?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: unreal engine

[Nicolas Esposito]

As far as I know the GI can be enabled into UE4, but Epic didn't fully
developed this feature because of GPU consumption, but I guess they're
planning to evolve the idea in the future...

Light Propagation Volumes GI



2014-08-23 9:25 GMT+02:00 :

>   I’m no specialist at all – but it’s not because the lights move around
> that there’s no baking involved.
> In my understanding and the little bit of research I did nearly a decade
> years ago – which was unrelated to Unreal – that was one of the paths being
> actively explored: baking a scene, and spherical harmonics in particular –
> which would allow to then have dynamic lights with radiosity in realtime.
> And the logistics at the time were a render/bake of a few hours and files
> running in the gigabytes...
>
>
>  *From:* Eugene Flormata 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 23, 2014 7:36 AM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* Re: ot: unreal engine
>
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOkJ1-vnh-s
> this doesn't really look baked though
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Alok Gandhi 
> wrote:
>
>>  It's all about baking. Recently, I made some arch viz app for Andriod
>> and iOS and I was able to achieve good quality. It was for unity and I did
>> all the baking in soft.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 23-Aug-2014, at 4:06 am, Nicolas Esposito <3dv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Consider that this is a kind of tech demo, means that Unreal Engine 4,
>> being a game engine, is built to manage multiple aspect ( physics,
>> characters movement and logic, enemies logic, particles and so on )
>> The video shows how good is UE4 with lighting and "atmosphere", but the
>> you actually build your scene as a game you need to do lots of
>> compromises...
>> Cryengine 2 was used as well for archivz and the results were stunning,
>> and lots of companies get a license to develop just that...
>>
>> The main issue that I found right now is that if you want to share or
>> send the work to your client ( as a walkthrough I mean ) you have to send (
>> and install ) a 1-2gb file, which most clients are not so comfortable
>> with...otherwise you can just render a video with it...the main advantage
>> is that you don't wait 5 minutes per frame, but just a couple of seconds.
>>
>> Anyway this engine looks amazing and the constant updates are improving
>> it more and more
>>
>>
>> 2014-08-22 23:18 GMT+02:00 Cristobal Infante :
>>
>>> Some more in his work in kotaku:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://kotaku.com/next-gen-lighting-is-pushing-the-limits-of-realism-1625324795?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflow
>>>
>>> And also a while back this Swedish apartment was done in Unreal
>>> (previously done in octane). He even offers a download if you want to test
>>> the interactivity.
>>>
>>> http://vimeo.com/m/98625270
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, 22 August 2014, Matt Lind  wrote:
>>>
   Addendum:



 It’s also part of the reason why 3rd party apps such as Fabric Engine
 can render faster than the native viewports – less overhead.





 Matt







 *From:* Matt Lind
 *Sent:* Friday, August 22, 2014 2:11 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* RE: ot: unreal engine



 Not the entire reason, but a big part of it is DCC apps must spend a
 lot of time reading and evaluating construction histories and other user
 interaction whereas the displayed data in a game engine is stripped down to
 the bare minimum for performance.  Game engines will always be faster than
 DCC apps in that regard, and by a large factor.



 As for look quality, it’s just a matter of writing the shaders.  You
 can do that in Softimage.





 Matt







 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
 mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Jordi
 Bares
 *Sent:* Friday, August 22, 2014 2:04 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: ot: unreal engine



 I still wonder why the viewport of our 3D apps is not as good as that…
 :-P



 Jordi Bares

 jordiba...@gmail.com



 On 22 Aug 2014, at 21:34, Francisco Criado 
 wrote:



 it seems to be, it only tales 10 minutes to build the light mapping.

 details here:

 https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?28163-ArchViz-Lighting



 2014-08-22 17:30 GMT-03:00 David Saber :

 On 2014-08-22 18:55, Francisco Criado wrote:

  have to share this:



 UE4 Archviz / Lighting 2
 





 F.

 wowo, this is r

Re: unreal engine

[Michael Connolly, Animatazz.]

There is a short and straight forward demonstration on how to do this in 
Blender using the cycles renderer would you believe using it in the 3d viewer 
or the blender game engine. here is a link:

Introduction to Blender Cycles Baking

  
             
Introduction to Blender Cycles Baking
When creating environments for animation, it’s important to make the lighting 
visible in real time. Find out how Blender cycles baking helps achieve this.  
View on www.blenderguru.com Preview by Yahoo  
  
 
 

Michael 




On Saturday, August 23, 2014 8:25 AM, "pete...@skynet.be"  
wrote:
 


I’m no specialist at all – but it’s not because the lights move around that 
there’s no baking involved.
In my understanding and the little bit of research I did nearly a decade 
years ago – which was unrelated to Unreal – that was one of the paths being 
actively explored: baking a scene, and spherical harmonics in particular – 
which 
would allow to then have dynamic lights with radiosity in realtime. And the 
logistics at the time were a render/bake of a few hours and files running in 
the 
gigabytes...
  
From: Eugene Flormata 
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 7:36 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com 
Subject: Re: ot: unreal engine
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOkJ1-vnh-s
this 
doesn't really look baked though



On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Alok Gandhi  wrote:

It's all about baking. Recently, I made some arch viz app for Andriod and  iOS 
and I was able to achieve good quality. It was for unity and I did all the  
baking in soft.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On 23-Aug-2014, at 4:06 am, Nicolas Esposito <3dv...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>
>Consider that this is a kind of tech demo, means that Unreal  Engine 4, being 
>a game engine, is built to manage multiple aspect ( physics,  characters 
>movement and logic, enemies logic, particles and so on ) 
>>The video shows how good is UE4 with lighting and "atmosphere", but the  you 
>>actually build your scene as a game you need to do lots of  compromises...
>>Cryengine 2 was used as well for archivz and the results were stunning,  and 
>>lots of companies get a license to develop just that...
>> 
>>The main issue that I found right now is that if you want to share or  send 
>>the work to your client ( as a walkthrough I mean ) you have to send (  and 
>>install ) a 1-2gb file, which most clients are not so comfortable  
>>with...otherwise you can just render a video with it...the main advantage is  
>>that you don't wait 5 minutes per frame, but just a couple of seconds.
>> 
>>Anyway this engine looks amazing and the constant updates are improving  it 
>>more and more
>>
>>
>>
>>2014-08-22 23:18 GMT+02:00 Cristobal Infante :
>>
>>Some more in his work in kotaku: 
>>>
>>>http://kotaku.com/next-gen-lighting-is-pushing-the-limits-of-realism-1625324795?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflow
>>> 
>>>And also a while back this Swedish apartment was done in Unreal  (previously 
>>>done in octane). He even offers a download if you want to test  the 
>>>interactivity.
>>> 
>>>http://vimeo.com/m/98625270
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>On Friday, 22 August 2014, Matt Lind 
   wrote:
>>>
>>>Addendum:
 
It’s  also part of the reason why 3rd party apps such as Fabric  Engine can 
render faster than the native viewports – less  overhead.
 
 
Matt
 
 
 
From:Matt Lind 
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 2:11 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: ot: unreal  engine
 
Not  the entire reason, but a big part of it is DCC apps must spend a lot 
of  time reading and evaluating construction histories and other user  
interaction whereas the displayed data in a game engine is stripped down  
to the bare minimum for performance.  Game engines will always be  faster 
than DCC apps in that regard, and by a large  factor.
 
As  for look quality, it’s just a matter of writing the shaders.  You  can 
do that in Softimage.
 
 
Matt
 
 
 
From:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Jordi Bares
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 2:04  PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: ot: unreal  engine
 
I still wonder why the viewport of our 3D apps is not  as good as that… :-P
 
Jordi  Bares
jordiba...@gmail.com
 
On 22 Aug 2014, at 21:34, Francisco Criado   wrote:
 
it seems to be, it only tales 10 minutes to build the  light mapping. 
details here:
https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?28163-ArchViz-Lighting
 
2014-08-22 17:30 GMT-03:00 David Saber  :
On 2014-08-22 18:55, Francisco Criado  wrote:
have to share this: 
> 
>UE4 Archviz / Lighting  2 
> 
> 
>F.   
wowo, this is realtime?
 
 
>> 

Re: unreal engine

[peter_b]

I’m no specialist at all – but it’s not because the lights move around that 
there’s no baking involved.
In my understanding and the little bit of research I did nearly a decade years 
ago – which was unrelated to Unreal – that was one of the paths being actively 
explored: baking a scene, and spherical harmonics in particular – which would 
allow to then have dynamic lights with radiosity in realtime. And the logistics 
at the time were a render/bake of a few hours and files running in the 
gigabytes...


From: Eugene Flormata 
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 7:36 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com 
Subject: Re: ot: unreal engine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOkJ1-vnh-s
this doesn't really look baked though



On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Alok Gandhi  wrote:

  It's all about baking. Recently, I made some arch viz app for Andriod and iOS 
and I was able to achieve good quality. It was for unity and I did all the 
baking in soft.

  Sent from my iPhone

  On 23-Aug-2014, at 4:06 am, Nicolas Esposito <3dv...@gmail.com> wrote:


Consider that this is a kind of tech demo, means that Unreal Engine 4, 
being a game engine, is built to manage multiple aspect ( physics, characters 
movement and logic, enemies logic, particles and so on ) 
The video shows how good is UE4 with lighting and "atmosphere", but the you 
actually build your scene as a game you need to do lots of compromises...
Cryengine 2 was used as well for archivz and the results were stunning, and 
lots of companies get a license to develop just that...

The main issue that I found right now is that if you want to share or send 
the work to your client ( as a walkthrough I mean ) you have to send ( and 
install ) a 1-2gb file, which most clients are not so comfortable 
with...otherwise you can just render a video with it...the main advantage is 
that you don't wait 5 minutes per frame, but just a couple of seconds.

Anyway this engine looks amazing and the constant updates are improving it 
more and more



2014-08-22 23:18 GMT+02:00 Cristobal Infante :

  Some more in his work in kotaku: 

  
http://kotaku.com/next-gen-lighting-is-pushing-the-limits-of-realism-1625324795?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflow

  And also a while back this Swedish apartment was done in Unreal 
(previously done in octane). He even offers a download if you want to test the 
interactivity.

  http://vimeo.com/m/98625270



  On Friday, 22 August 2014, Matt Lind  wrote:

Addendum:



It’s also part of the reason why 3rd party apps such as Fabric Engine 
can render faster than the native viewports – less overhead.





Matt







From: Matt Lind 
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 2:11 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: ot: unreal engine



Not the entire reason, but a big part of it is DCC apps must spend a 
lot of time reading and evaluating construction histories and other user 
interaction whereas the displayed data in a game engine is stripped down to the 
bare minimum for performance.  Game engines will always be faster than DCC apps 
in that regard, and by a large factor.



As for look quality, it’s just a matter of writing the shaders.  You 
can do that in Softimage.





Matt







From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Jordi Bares
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 2:04 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: ot: unreal engine



I still wonder why the viewport of our 3D apps is not as good as that… 
:-P



Jordi Bares

jordiba...@gmail.com



On 22 Aug 2014, at 21:34, Francisco Criado  
wrote:



it seems to be, it only tales 10 minutes to build the light mapping. 

details here:

https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?28163-ArchViz-Lighting



2014-08-22 17:30 GMT-03:00 David Saber :

On 2014-08-22 18:55, Francisco Criado wrote:

  have to share this: 



  UE4 Archviz / Lighting 2
 




F.
   
 
   

wowo, this is realtime?